The key here is "neoprene or other buoyant material"
That's the language which sets them apart.
Well that language isn't in the rule itself, but the USA-S interpretations generally bind to the USMS rules where applicable (articles 101, 102, and 105 as I recall, except for a few minor differences). It also devolves from the rule in a similar way that substances of the ilk of excessive rubdown oil devolve as well.
The catch is that to find this interpretation, unless you already knew it from someone else, you have to drill down about three or four layers deep on the USA Swimming website to find it (and oh by the way, you have to know where to look too). Most sensible people aren't going to do to want to do this!
However, unless you think about it in this manner, it isn't necessarily apparent that neoprene wetsuits are barred by rule, as several posters mentioned earlier. It's not a situation I'm fond of--an official interpretation is not apparent from the clearly written rule. It's also not a good thing if you have to officiate based on those rules without having all of the interpretations either.
Patrick King
The key here is "neoprene or other buoyant material"
That's the language which sets them apart.
Well that language isn't in the rule itself, but the USA-S interpretations generally bind to the USMS rules where applicable (articles 101, 102, and 105 as I recall, except for a few minor differences). It also devolves from the rule in a similar way that substances of the ilk of excessive rubdown oil devolve as well.
The catch is that to find this interpretation, unless you already knew it from someone else, you have to drill down about three or four layers deep on the USA Swimming website to find it (and oh by the way, you have to know where to look too). Most sensible people aren't going to do to want to do this!
However, unless you think about it in this manner, it isn't necessarily apparent that neoprene wetsuits are barred by rule, as several posters mentioned earlier. It's not a situation I'm fond of--an official interpretation is not apparent from the clearly written rule. It's also not a good thing if you have to officiate based on those rules without having all of the interpretations either.
Patrick King
